Should "new Northern" scrap 15x as a sweetener?

[The Ham]

I'd love to know how a battery powered train is going to do Basingstoke to Exeter on one charge.

It probably wouldn't, but you could probably do Basingstoke to Salisbury on a charge and then do a cross platform change to a DMU to go the rest of the way. Maybe with every other service being a through service.

 

[randyrippley]

I'd love to know how a battery powered train is going to do Basingstoke to Exeter on one charge.

It wouldn't, but a train with distributed fuel cells might, as long as you could store the hydrogen

 

[43096]

It probably wouldn't, but you could probably do Basingstoke to Salisbury on a charge and then do a cross platform change to a DMU to go the rest of the way. Maybe with every other service being a through service.

So it’s a complete non-starter then.

 

[VT 390]

Scrapping the Sprinters would solve a lot of Northern problems.
There would have to be service reductions due to the reduced stock, but that would reduce costs, reduce staffing needs and reduce the throughput through Castlefield so improving timekeeping. Reduced capacity would also allow price increases as well.
Unfortunately that would mean fewer passengers could use the service, but they were lossmaking anyway so the fewer the better..........
Before long costs would be under control

You think its a mad idea and far fetched? Wait and see what happens...........

If fewer passengers used Northern services (which if the cost increased is likely) most of these people would still need to travel so would switch to other forms of transport either making them overcrowded or use their cars, is it really s good idea to get people to do this when there is the stock to operate it each as all the 15x trains?
For this reason and others I do not think anything from Northern should be scrapped before a replacement is found if it means reducing capacity.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Following the Pacer withdrawals, there are now plenty of 2-car 156s and 158s operating on routes where a 2-car 195 would provide adequate seating capacity. Examples: Cumbrian Coast, Carlisle to Newcastle, Settle & Carlisle.

If the 195/0s were swapped on to these routes, the 15x could be redeployed in 3- and 4-car formations, with inter-unit gangways, instead of using paired-up 195/0s on routes that need the extra capacity.

If there are too many 150/1s to operate them all on 2-car diagrams, some could be reformed into 3-car units, as per the Arriva franchise agreement, with some of the 150/2s split up to provide the centre cars.

IMO the aim should be to minimise the operation of the DMUs lacking end gangways (150/1s and 195s) in multiple formations.

The 150's should be reformed into a mixture of three and four car units and stuck on to services in the North West and used on a small number of services in Yorkshire. Whatever's left gets broken down into spare parts units. Units would remain as this before they are either scrapped or preserved (hopefully all the 150/1's and /2's will be scrapped leaving the two prototypes being retained for preservation).

The 153's, retain seven units and insert into the middle of the seven class 155's (341 - 347) to make then into three car units and reform the rest into three car class 155/9's - the only difference with a /9 variation would be the one coach being PRM'd, four cabs being removed, and the 'new cab' being used at either end to visually display that this is a /9 variation of the class.

The 156's, again reform into three car units. As there's be a number of units that would end up with either just a single bog or with two, two subclasses would have to be used - /8's for the units with two bogs and /9 for the units with just one.

The 158's, any two car unit gets reformed into a three car hybrid.

With more reformed units, you've got a bit more capacity space - especially if/when Fleetwood, Wetherby, Ashington and a host of other lines in the north are reopened as it gives them the fleet required for the services. Leaving the 170's and 195's running the more established services until the 150's are scrapped and replaced with presumingly more 195's.

More centre coaches should be ordered for the 195's to make them into a mixture of four and five car units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

More centre coaches should be ordered for the 195's to make them into a mixture of four and five car units.

I'm more thinking that I'd have them all as a standard 3 and use single and double formations as per Merseyrail. But extending to 4 and 5 with no doubling up would be another option.

 

[yorksrob]

The 150's should be reformed into a mixture of three and four car units and stuck on to services in the North West and used on a small number of services in Yorkshire. Whatever's left gets broken down into spare parts units. Units would remain as this before they are either scrapped or preserved (hopefully all the 150/1's and /2's will be scrapped leaving the two prototypes being retained for preservation).

The 153's, retain seven units and insert into the middle of the seven class 155's (341 - 347) to make then into three car units and reform the rest into three car class 155/9's - the only difference with a /9 variation would be the one coach being PRM'd, four cabs being removed, and the 'new cab' being used at either end to visually display that this is a /9 variation of the class.

The 156's, again reform into three car units. As there's be a number of units that would end up with either just a single bog or with two, two subclasses would have to be used - /8's for the units with two bogs and /9 for the units with just one.

The 158's, any two car unit gets reformed into a three car hybrid.

With more reformed units, you've got a bit more capacity space - especially if/when Fleetwood, Wetherby, Ashington and a host of other lines in the north are reopened as it gives them the fleet required for the services. Leaving the 170's and 195's running the more established services until the 150's are scrapped and replaced with presumingly more 195's.

More centre coaches should be ordered for the 195's to make them into a mixture of four and five car units.

I would say that in the absence of any meaningful refurbishments of the 150's, it would be better to permanently couple the 153's to these. That way as well as an extra carriage of capacity, all the reformed units would gain an element of 2+2 seating, tables and two toilets.

 

[randyrippley]

If fewer passengers used Northern services (which if the cost increased is likely) most of these people would still need to travel so would switch to other forms of transport either making them overcrowded or use their cars, is it really s good idea to get people to do this when there is the stock to operate it each as all the 15x trains?
For this reason and others I do not think anything from Northern should be scrapped before a replacement is found if it means reducing capacity.

Exactly the point I was trying to make in response to the original post

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say that in the absence of any meaningful refurbishments of the 150's, it would be better to permanently couple the 153's to these. That way as well as an extra carriage of capacity, all the reformed units would gain an element of 2+2 seating, tables and two toilets.

With Northern's strict rules about guards needing to be in the rear unit when not gangwayed[1], I would suggest any reformations should ensure a longer gangwayed unit. While it'd look a bit weird[2], a 153 (bog removed) in the middle of a PRMed 150/1 may not be a bad idea at all.

[1] Or does it apply even if gangwayed in case of a separation? But as 15x are BSI coupled throughout, presumably they could separate anywhere in the formation...

[2] A bit like a Sheffield tram, I suppose - standee and PRM space with multiple doors in the end vehicles, 2+2 facing seating in the middle bit for longer journeys.

 

[yorksrob]

With Northern's strict rules about guards needing to be in the rear unit when not gangwayed[1], I would suggest any reformations should ensure a longer gangwayed unit. While it'd look a bit weird[2], a 153 (bog removed) in the middle of a PRMed 150/1 may not be a bad idea at all.

Why remove the non-prm toilet ? We don't do this for InterCity stock where one of the toilets is compliant.

[2] A bit like a Sheffield tram, I suppose - standee and PRM space with multiple doors in the end vehicles, 2+2 facing seating in the middle bit for longer journeys.

I've not been on a Sheffield tram but that sounds like it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why remove the non-prm toilet ? We don't do this for InterCity stock where one of the toilets is compliant.

I was thinking luggage space, but is there room for a tank? 153 bogs are of the "c**p-on-the-track" persuasion.

 

[yorksrob]

I was thinking luggage space, but is there room for a tank? 153 bogs are of the "c**p-on-the-track" persuasion.

Well, I would imagine that there's a lot less technical gubbins under there taking up space than a more modern carriage, but I'm not an expert.

That said, I would strongly opine that two lavatories on a 3 carriage unit should be a much higher priority than an additional luggage space (particularly with these modern vacuum toilets).

 

[py_megapixel]

I would strongly opine that two lavatories on a 3 carriage unit should be a much higher priority than an additional luggage space (particularly with these modern vacuum toilets).

I don't think the problem is so much the technology they are using - more the capacity of the tanks. IMO the toilets shouldn't lock out when they are full, as people might still want to use them to get changed or just wash their hands.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think the problem is so much the technology they are using - more the capacity of the tanks. IMO the toilets shouldn't lock out when they are full, as people might still want to use them to get changed or just wash their hands.

Indeed. But two toilets is two tanks so it helps to alleviate the problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the problem is so much the technology they are using - more the capacity of the tanks. IMO the toilets shouldn't lock out when they are full, as people might still want to use them to get changed or just wash their hands.

The problem is that if people can get in they'll still use it, and eventually the amassed liquid is adequate to end up all over the floor at the next set of points.

 

[py_megapixel]

The problem is that if people can get in they'll still use it, and eventually the amassed liquid is adequate to end up all over the floor at the next set of points.

Ah! I didn't think of that!

 

[The Ham]

So it’s a complete non-starter then.

Even just Basingstoke/Salisbury on a 1tph basis, would free up 3 diagrams, at the very least that's 6 units released. You could also free up the Salisbury 6 (Salisbury Romsey via Southampton services), which would be a further 2 units (it's 3 diagrams, but would likely want to retain the 2 coach units to form more 10 coach trains).

Better still use batteries to get to Salisbury and then loco haul the rest of the way to Exeter, that would free up 8 diagrams and 16 units.

Neither of those sound like a lot, but they are all 3 coach units and could well be all extra units.

 

[43096]

Even just Basingstoke/Salisbury on a 1tph basis, would free up 3 diagrams, at the very least that's 6 units released. You could also free up the Salisbury 6 (Salisbury Romsey via Southampton services), which would be a further 2 units (it's 3 diagrams, but would likely want to retain the 2 coach units to form more 10 coach trains).

Better still use batteries to get to Salisbury and then loco haul the rest of the way to Exeter, that would free up 8 diagrams and 16 units.

Neither of those sound like a lot, but they are all 3 coach units and could well be all extra units.

Neither of those sound sensible in terms of running an efficient service, stock requirements or environmental gains.

Battery is only of use for short extensions beyond the wires. It really isn’t the solution many think it is: the real fix is electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Neither of those sound sensible in terms of running an efficient service, stock requirements or environmental gains.

Battery is only of use for short extensions beyond the wires. It really isn’t the solution many think it is: the real fix is electrification.

Battery is for branch lines, though low-cost light rail OHLE should also be considered if the branch is self-contained and can switch to LRV operation. I agree that there is no substitute on a 100+mph mainline for the proper wires.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All these people calling for 150s and 153s to be scrapped might first want to come up with a workable replacement that can squeeze modern diesel engines and their associated exhaust treatment systems under a 20m bodyshell... unless the plan is for bustitution along routes where buses would have to take very indirect, winding and congested roads in order to serve villages like Shepley and Brockholes.

I'll not hold my breath...

 

[The Ham]

All these people calling for 150s and 153s to be scrapped might first want to come up with a workable replacement that can squeeze modern diesel engines and their associated exhaust treatment systems under a 20m bodyshell... unless the plan is for bustitution along routes where buses would have to take very indirect, winding and congested roads in order to serve villages like Shepley and Brockholes.

I'll not hold my breath...

Especially given the latest news on how reliable, or otherwise, of the new trains at Northern.

 

[The Ham]

Battery is for branch lines, though low-cost light rail OHLE should also be considered if the branch is self-contained and can switch to LRV operation. I agree that there is no substitute on a 100+mph mainline for the proper wires.

Indeed. However until there's more wires putting the extra costs of locos/battery trains on SWR could be a stop gap until the wires can be put up.

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed. However until there's more wires putting the extra costs of locos/battery trains on SWR could be a stop gap until the wires can be put up.

Or just buy bimodes.....

 

[The Ham]

Or just buy bimodes.....

Depends on how long they would be used for. For instance why buy bimodal trains for 15 years of use, when you could use a 15 to 20 year old existing EMU with no current use.

 

[Meerkat]

Why would the bi-modes only get 15 years use?

 

[Energy]

The class 158s are fine trains but we should look towards their replacement as they are getting older, trains take a while to deliver and you don't want the situation Northern has now with a very elderly fleet with each franchise scrapping the very bottom of the barrel (pacers, although they did save some lines, they aren't used correctly today) while still having trains which are just slightly better for passenger comfort but still terrible (class 150). If I was Northern I would certainly be looking at a new fleet of bimode trains, first to get rid of much of the overcrowding, then replacing class 150s and 153s then replacing 155s and 156s, then replacing 158s, with units afterwards for growth. I doubt this model is sustainable on some rural lines though as trains aren't cheap, but TfW is replacing trains on all of its rural lines, class 170s are still fine trains.

Why would the bi-modes only get 15 years use?

Not sure, bimodes can last just as long as emus as most are designed so that they can be converted to emus easily

 

[randyrippley]

The class 158s are fine trains but we should look towards their replacement as they are getting older, trains take a while to deliver and you don't want the situation Northern has now with a very elderly fleet with each franchise scrapping the very bottom of the barrel (pacers, although they did save some lines, they aren't used correctly today) while still having trains which are just slightly better for passenger comfort but still terrible (class 150). If I was Northern I would certainly be looking at a new fleet of bimode trains, first to get rid of much of the overcrowding, then replacing class 150s and 153s then replacing 155s and 156s, then replacing 158s, with units afterwards for growth. I doubt this model is sustainable on some rural lines though as trains aren't cheap, but TfW is replacing trains on all of its rural lines, class 170s are still fine trains.

Not sure, bimodes can last just as long as emus as most are designed so that they can be converted to emus easily

Right now the new managers at Northern will be looking at ways to stabilise the cost base, not spend money on new stock.
To all intents and purposes you should look at it as a bankrupt company being run by administrators

 

[Energy]

Right now the new managers at Northern will be looking at ways to stabilise the cost base, not spend money on new stock.
To all intents and purposes you should look at it as a bankrupt company being run by administrators

Lots of the money is invested by the ROSCOs though, Northern in its current state with its old rolling stock will not be easily profitable, it isn't exactly appealing to new travellers right now.

 

[Killingworth]

Lots of the money is invested by the ROSCOs though, Northern in its current state with its old rolling stock will not be easily profitable, it isn't exactly appealing to new travellers right now.

Difficulty is that older rolling stock is cheaper to lease so make do and mend helps the bottom line, in the short term. Northern will never be profitable overall, although some careful allocation of costs and income might allow some services or lines to be made to look so.

As an example, I saw someone battling with our local Northern TVM today trying to get a ticket to Exeter. I know, crazy, but true. Only about 3 in 4 at best pay on Northern journeys from here (another story) so if the income from that ticket was 100% allocated to our station and our line it would boost profitability very nicely.

Run every timetabled train to time everey day and new travellers will come. Give them a choice of seats and they may not notice the age of the trains. Removing litter and cleaning seats and floors might encourage them to come more often. Too many recently refurbished trains are already grubby; so much so I'd rather stand.

 

[The Ham]

Why would the bi-modes only get 15 years use?

There's only so many places which will need to use bimodal trains, so we might need to be careful how many we look to buy now with an eye on the fact that from 2035 there'll only be new electric/hydrogen cars.

Therefore we should focus on battery trains for those routes which are likely to justify being able to be wired up in the short term.

This was in the context of the line to Yeovil which as a minimum sees 6 coaches an hour in each direction, with many hours likely to see more than that (maybe as high as 20 in an hour in one direction), as well it's likely to see more trains post Crossrail 2 (there's few paths available on the other lines South/West of Woking).

It also has a high level of income from the line meaning that high costs of electrification wouldn't be as much of a problem as lines which focus on local services much more.

Whilst bimodal trains could be an option there's also the issue of how many you could build in a short time, would it be better that those new trains were destined and built for the lines that they were going to be used on for a long time.

It should also be noted that longer term bimodal trains from elsewhere (GWML or MML) could be used (and be a good fit) the WofE line. This isn't always the case for other diesel services.